Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Sterile and non sexual people are allowed to marry and do so frequently. Many second, third, ect., marriages include sterile people.

Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides no benefit to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski.)

1.a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

<quoted text>Odd, not according to Merriam-Webster:1.a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

I noticed you pick an 'updated' for political correctness resource...

Here is a more balanced view from Widipedia;

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. In many cultures, marriage is formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to opposite sex couples or two persons of opposite gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. Since 2000, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity."

However, from a purely scientific view point;

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are incapable of mating.

Moreover, the social acceptance of raising children apart from their biological children has resulted in a dramatic decline in marriage, only further exposing the relationship between marriage and children.

You are incapable of addressing these facts, and instead childishly demand I not talk to you.

Why yes it was! Same with the "In God we trust" on our dollar bills and coined also! I bet the author of the pledge is rolling over in his grave at the way they butcherd his pledge with out his permission! It was done during the Eisenhower administration and was ram rodded through by a group of fundamentalist Christians! Fact! LOL

The law trumps personal beliefs about what marriage is, has been, or should be.

Legally, marriage it is a fundamental right of all persons.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny. Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Within those limits, gay people qualify. Gender restrictions have been shown to be irrational and harmful.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate excuse for denial of equal treatment under the law. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted.

Denial of equal treatment under the law provides no benefit to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.